Re: Comments on draft-ietf-grip-isp-expectations-04.txt

["Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@MIT.EDU>]

Bill Woodcock wrote:

> I do have to disagree on this, though, and support the existing text.  We
> do and must continue to encourage customers to close relays, since every
> open relay _is_ abused constantly, and generates a huge and continuous
> support load through the abuse channel.
>
>     > I believe that the state of "play" with
>     > open mail relays vs. the spammers vs. the anti-spam vigilantes is
>     > sufficiently unstable that we, the IETF, should not be making
>     > recommendations of a policy nature such as this one.
>
> I'd rather see the definition of "open relay" made less
> technology-specific, but the injunction left in place.

The real problem is with the definition of "open relay." I agree that we need to
discourage the scourge that is spam. However many of the anti-spam vigilantes use
an overly simple definition of "open relay" which precludes systems that are more
open then their definition. I would rather the IETF not preclude such systems.

                -Jeff